For Merck, Outcomes Trials Offer Fast Track To Payers
This article was originally published in Pharmaceutical Approvals Monthly
Executive Summary
More so than any other big pharma, Merck is dependent on large outcomes trials. The cost of failure is high, but success would allow entry into massive, highly generic primary care markets with products backed by clinical outcomes data that meet payers’ need for real-world evidence of a drug’s value in terms of health economics as well as clinical efficacy.
You may also be interested in...
The SHARP “Approval”: Merck Gets Vytorin Labeling Change, But Not The CV Outcomes Claim It Sought
FDA opted against a new indication for the ezetimibe/simvastatin combination because the SHARP trial in chronic kidney disease patients did not assess the independent contributions of each drug on the observed effect. There was no indication at a November advisory committee review that issues related to the “combination rule” would pose a barrier to a new claim.
Merck On Track To File Novel Sleep Aid Suvorexant In 2012
Merck announced its potential first-in-class dual orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant successfully completed a second Phase III trial, apparently without safety concerns that led Actelion/GlaxoSmithKline to drop their DORA almorexant a year ago on Phase III results.
Merck On Track To File Novel Sleep Aid Suvorexant In 2012
Merck announced its potential first-in-class dual orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant successfully completed a second Phase III trial, apparently without safety concerns that led Actelion/GlaxoSmithKline to drop their DORA almorexant a year ago on Phase III results.